LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why do you say they are insufficient? They do work. That has been demonstrated.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Progressive creation is a possibility, but it implies a trickster god who performed his progressive creation in a way that looks to us like those new species came about through processes that follow the observed laws of nature. I would rather believe in a God who does not trick us in that manner, but presents us with a mostly logical world whose rules of operation are amenable to human discovery. The few times that those laws of nature are suspended are clearly presented by God as such - like the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. Each time those suspensions of the laws of nature are presented to us for a purpose.Metis1:
It never stopped, because it never started - macroevolution, I mean. What appears to be macroevolution in the fossil record is a process of progressive creation (imo) - hence all the gaps and all those inexplicable changes in morphology.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s right. It’s not science. It is religion. In fact any theory of souls is religion - not that there is anything wrong with that. But it isn’t science. However when you are playing the game of science, you should play by the rules of science, which are the scientific method.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Not all forms of knowledge can be derived from the scientific method. The scientific method requires reproduction of outcomes. History isn’t reproducible. Events happen only once. Miracles may happen but only one time.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
History can be studied scientifically. You can formulate a scientific hypothesis about history, and then go and gather more evidence to see if that evidence supports the theory.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
I don’t live in the United States, but given its political, cultural and economic influence, there’s an strong inclination to follow what goes on in that country.
I’m not sure tribalism is the right word, but what comes across is an extreme lack of bipartisan cooperation and a value system that is skewed towards supporting one’s side (Democrat vs Republican) over that of the truth and good. It’s tribal in the sense that the feelings seem deep rooted and endemic to the population. It’s a global issue that’s always been with us.
That conflicting dualism is reflected somewhat on these forums, but enters into the construction of the questionnaire where there are basically two choices. Things are the way they are through evolutionary processes, unguided or guided (whatever that would possibly mean in reality), or that things have been the same since the beginning. Those are not the only two choices and I don’t believe either represents the creation of the natural world, yet those two choices are what is offered.
And so it comes across as a reflection of the tensions present in America’s society, which play a significant role in many people’s religious affiliation and belief system. What I would be more interested is in the details of the views that people have, which might involve more on the lines of a specific twenty item questionnaire that would include the sources they use for their particular understanding. I don’t know, and I’m getting off topic.
I’m not sure tribalism is the right word, but what comes across is an extreme lack of bipartisan cooperation and a value system that is skewed towards supporting one’s side (Democrat vs Republican) over that of the truth and good. It’s tribal in the sense that the feelings seem deep rooted and endemic to the population. It’s a global issue that’s always been with us.
That conflicting dualism is reflected somewhat on these forums, but enters into the construction of the questionnaire where there are basically two choices. Things are the way they are through evolutionary processes, unguided or guided (whatever that would possibly mean in reality), or that things have been the same since the beginning. Those are not the only two choices and I don’t believe either represents the creation of the natural world, yet those two choices are what is offered.
And so it comes across as a reflection of the tensions present in America’s society, which play a significant role in many people’s religious affiliation and belief system. What I would be more interested is in the details of the views that people have, which might involve more on the lines of a specific twenty item questionnaire that would include the sources they use for their particular understanding. I don’t know, and I’m getting off topic.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The notion of “defect” implies the knowledge of what is not defective - that is, perfect, or at least “better.” So you are really saying that mutations produce changes that are “bad” for the organism, according to some scale of “good” and “bad.” Normally we think of “good” in this context as more able to succeed in life - to live and have offspring. You are saying that genetic mutations are always either neutral or detrimental according to this measure. Most of the time that would true. They are generally destructive. But once in a while they might produce a change that is actually beneficial to survival and reproduction. If those few instances could be selected out and all the defective mutations discarded, then the result in the next generation would be that the surviving organisms with mutations are only the good ones. So taken together with this natural selection mechanism, the end result is not defective, but actually an improvement, according to the scale we set out. You could think of that as a “creative” process, however the use of such a term would not be beyond the realm of science, so I won’t use it here.LeafByNiggle:
That
LeafByNiggle:
Mutations produce defects rather than refinements. Mutations are an insufficient explanation for elegant refinements. Death by natural selection is not a creative process.
If you know enough of the “what” then you now know the “how.”
Last edited:
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Blindly and aimlessly, mutations might impact a few cells in a generation but how would that create something that was significant and useful?
Aren’t you speculating and "reaching "a bit to explain how blind and aimless mutations could have even a remote chance of producing something useful? Without a bias in favor of mutations and natural selection, wouldn’t you want to look for other explanations about “how” natural history came about?
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Two points. First, if that mutation is in the gonads, ovaries or testes, then it will be passed on to future generations.
Second, see A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope For Heart Disease Patients for just one example of a beneficial mutation.
On average every human has about 75 mutations. Most are neutral and most of the rest are deleterious to some degree. However, with 75 x 7e9 = 525,000,000,000 different mutations to look at, a few of them are going to be beneficial.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…what rossum said.
G
goout
Guest
I’m a degreed scientist in geology. And I’m 58.
You need to take some basic science courses instead of insulting those who are trying to help you understand the material.
If you care about those reading from this forum, you should exercise your responsibility to educate yourself.
You need to take some basic science courses instead of insulting those who are trying to help you understand the material.
If you care about those reading from this forum, you should exercise your responsibility to educate yourself.
M
Metis1
Guest
Where did I say or imply that? You’re making an assumption of what I think is likely that is quite wrong.
M
Metis1
Guest
OK, so the survey is “dumb”? How can a survey be “dumb”?
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
According to the Genesis accounts, creation stopped at the end of the 6th day. “Yom” is always interpreted as “day” as there are other Hebrew words for “epoch” and “era”, unless there is specificity of it being symbolic, which is absent in the creation accounts.
B
Bradskii
Guest
The evidence points to God having used a specific process to produce what we have today. That being evolution. If you have any evidence that might give a different conclusion then you are free to produce it and we can balance the weight of the Stoplooklisten Theory compared to Darwin’s.
M
Metis1
Guest
The Genesis accounts of creation are probably the manifestation of something that is worldwide, namely the use of “myth” as a teaching device. That word does not mean nor imply falsehood in our anthropological use of the term but means a narrative whose main purpose is to teach beliefs and often morals.
The Genesis creation accounts are probably a reworking of the Babylonian creation narrative but then reworked to teach Jewish beliefs and values. Archaeologists know that at least some in eretz Israel were familiar with them as a Cuneiform tablet with that narrative was found n northern Israel that was written roughly a thousand years before the penning of Genesis. I went to a several hour seminar on this about 10 years or so ago at the synagogue I used to attend.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Can you get your tuition money refunded?
M
Metis1
Guest
Is that degree of sarcasm really necessary?
A
Aloysium
Guest
You sincerely have no idea what I mean? Am I to take you to your word that you don’t, or are you trying to say something that I am missing. Call me dumb; I don’t know what you are getting at. There is a reason why you posted this and you must have something in mind that relates back to the topic. What is it?
- Status